W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2004

Condition names, was: comments on draft-ietf-webdav-quota-04.txt

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 13:00:19 +0100
Message-ID: <41CC04D3.4070701@gmx.de>
To: Brian Korver <briank@xythos.com>
CC: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Brian Korver wrote:

>>>> 02-C01 Condition Name
>>>>
>>>> Use name of precondition, not failure description:   
>>>> <quota-not-exceeded/> instead of <storage-quota-reached/>.
>>>
>>> There was no clear consensus when I asked for a show of hands on 
>>> the   list
>>> on whether this change was desired/required.
>>
>>
>> I can't recall you asking; but I'm sure you can point to a message in  
>> the mailing list archive?
>>
>> Anyway, *I* recall that you agreed to change it  
>> (<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004JulSep/ 
>> 0107.html>) and the only disagreement came from Lisa (in  
>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004JulSep/ 
>> 0109.html>, but she said she didn't want to delay the draft because 
>> of  that).
> 
> 
> Right, those are the emails.
> 
> I agree with Lisa that I don't feel it's worth delaying the draft
> over either.  Are you saying that you would object to the draft
> moving forward if your suggested change isn't made?
> ... 

I'm convinced that re-using RFC3253 terminology in an inconsistent way 
is a Very Bad Idea, in particular if there doesn't seem to be any 
rationale for it except "personal preference". Thus, I'll continue to 
object, and, as far as I can tell from the previous mails, I seem to be 
part of the WG majority here.

Best regards, Julian


-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Friday, 24 December 2004 12:00:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:51 UTC